Nearly 20 Percent Of Scientists Contemplate Moving... Due In Part To Sequestrat[W:169

This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Nearly 20 Percent Of Scientists Contemplate Moving Overseas Due In Part To Se...

Originally Posted by DVSentinel

Only 20%. Should be more than that, after all, science, logic and reason are incompatible with the left.

This post is not logical or reasonable.

I have a feeling you think science has a liberal bias....

Many Trump supporters have lots of problems, and those deplorables are bringing those problems to us. They’re racists. They’re misogynists. They’re islamophobic. They're xenophobes and homophobes. And some, I assume, are good people.

Re: Nearly 20 Percent Of Scientists Contemplate Moving Overseas Due In Part To Seques

Originally Posted by ReformCollege

In my experience with the social sciences, a lot of times it seems like they make a hypothesis built upon shaky research at best, or at worst a hypothesis's built on another hypothesis. Not to mention, a lot of time their research findings aren't quantifiable and subject to interpretation. Dark matter may be a hypothesis, but at least there its not open to interpretation and it has an equation .

By the sound of this you have been reading research in qualitative nature then. I suggest you seek out social science studies with quantitative or mixed designs. There shall be interpretations there as well of course, but you can knock yourself out with equations, numbers, and tested hypothesis to the point where the null hypothesis is either rejected or not.

I guess its unfair to call them pseudoscientists as that puts them in the category of straight up quackery, IE the homeopathists and astrologists of the world. But the word "science" should be left to the scientists and those who study the world without following the methods of science should really find another name. Social researchers sounds a lot better in my opinion.

Social science has methodology. It conducts experiments from posttest only all the way to the more robust models such as Solomon's 4 group experiments. It could use means between groups to seek out significant differences or it could even use regression analysis so as to predict an outcome by a certain measurable amount.

Social sciences main lean in quantitative studies is the the theory of probability though. Perhaps what you were going for is that social science is not an exact science maybe? Perhaps you meant that the word "science" should have been left to sciences that are exact alone?

Last edited by DDD; 08-31-13 at 09:29 PM.

Originally Posted by poweRob

Stats come out and always show life getting better. News makes money in making you think its not.

Re: Nearly 20 Percent Of Scientists Contemplate Moving Overseas Due In Part To Seques

Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate

Would they have died otherwise? How many survived and lived longer lives? Again, you do not address the facts that our lifespans have increased substantially... that is all just random chance?

So, when you are laughing at "conservatives" and "right wing trolls" along with our defense of capitalism, how are you able to disguise, manipulate your own mind to close off all the prosperity world wide that comes with the self interest, the incentives, the freedoms concomitant with this system that allows private ownership and is based on voluntary exchange [ the genius of free markets as both parties walk away thinking they got the better deal ], as well as the self regulating nature of capitalism? The better nutrition world wide, the less hunger and starvation, the far wider disbursement of these medical assets world wide for self knowledge and better preventive care, earlier...

Sure wasn't a result of the communist regimes... and the socialists of Europe only under the protection of the American military and taxpayer...now that they are having to shoulder more and more of that burden themselves, even before, they are/were showing signs of imminent collapse... too heavy on that socialism stuff...

Do you have any studies that actually show that we are living longer ?

Again *laughs*

Capitalism is the economic system where everything is a made of a commodity. Our land, people, work, education, politics is made in a commodity under capitalism and corporatism. Defend it all you want.... I know the truth. Having health as a main priority in my life I know I don't want to be trick by sleazy doctors and corporations. I rather do my own research. The doctors, pharmacies, corporations understand business and they like making a lot of money. So Again when you walk into that cancer clinic... Just remember. Its just business Nothing personal.

Re: Nearly 20 Percent Of Scientists Contemplate Moving Overseas Due In Part To Seques

Originally Posted by DDD

By the sound of this you have been reading research in qualitative nature then. I suggest you seek out social science studies with quantitative or mixed designs. There shall be interpretations there as well of course, but you can knock yourself out with equations, numbers, and tested hypothesis to the point where the null hypothesis is either rejected or not.

Social science has methodology. It conducts experiments from posttest only all the way to the more robust models such as Solomon's 4 group experiments. It could use means between groups to seek out significant differences or it could even use regression analysis so as to predict an outcome by a certain measurable amount.

Social sciences main lean in quantitative studies is the the theory of probability though. Perhaps what you were going for is that social science is not an exact science maybe? Perhaps you meant that the word "science" should have been left to sciences that are exact alone?

Well, I'm speaking from a limited perspective, but from what I have encountered in my literature, psychology, and sociology classes they were mostly qualitative. Quantitative analysis seemed to more or less be a fill in the blank for backing qualitative research, when in reality it should've been the other way around. It seemed especially bad in sociology where anyone who was a sociologist could make a completely wack claim and it was automatically given legitimacy. Their words and interpretations alone were accepted without question. Then again, that might just be sociology being a wackjob study, or maybe my teacher was just a wacko with an enormous selection bias. It just came across as jargoned political dogma rather then any honest pursuit of knowledge. Also, as a college student, I've been asked to participate in a large amount of social science researcher's surveys and some of the questions they are asking seem like a complete joke. Too often I notice that the results that these researchers are looking for are almost built into the study's design.

But anyways yes, I agree with the last statement. "Science" should be saved for exact science.

It is imperative that radiologists be aware of these toxicities and that they learn to recognize the relevant findings so that they can provide a complete differential diagnosis and thus play an important role in patient care.

Such therapy may raise the risk of leukemia, particularly in association with certain types of adjuvant chemotherapy. Lung cancer risk is also increased, especially in cigarette smokers, and there are some indications that the risks of esophageal cancer and sarcomas may be elevated as well.

Cancer risks following diagnostic and therapeutic radiation exposure in children
Many studies of radiation for treatment of benign diseases and a few studies of diagnostic radiation exposure have yielded much of the information on the risk for radiation-related cancer in children. Although most cancers can be induced by radiation, these studies demonstrate dose-related increased risks of cancer of the thyroid, breasts and brain, non-melanoma skin cancer, and leukemia.

" Millions of people have died during this period after having radical surgery, intense radiotherapy, or intense chemotherapy."

Its only is a matter of time before it will be obvious to the populations.

Why do you keep posting old studies and old ****?

It seems you have a misunderstanding of how chemotherapy works. ITS SUPPOSED TO BE CYTOTOXIC, that's the point, its more cytotoxic towards cancer cells than human cells. So for all its minuses, it at least gives the patient the chance to live.

Re: Nearly 20 Percent Of Scientists Contemplate Moving Overseas Due In Part To Seques

Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate

So you send me links to previews of books that I cannot read fully. Where, specifically [ page number book name, etc...] did you get your declaration that doctors give treatments to sick people that actually make the patient sicker so they can make more money on them. You have read the books right? Why not tell me the pages in the previews that I can actually view where the information you indicate is there can be found and analyzed? After reading a few pages and the tables of contents, I did not get the impression that the books said anything of the sort.

I study history... and in 1900 the average lifespan was approximately age 43 in the United States. We now have almost doubled that. While correlation is not causation, it is obviously somehow closely associated. Something in our business/medical model is generating longer lives. Maybe its global warming/climate change... oh no, that is supposed to be bad for us...ummm...maybe it was all the world wars? No....that would kill us off earlier too...hmmmmm....oh, must be socialism/communism...but hey, they killed over a hundred million of their own people in the last 100 years...so no, that doesn't seem to fit either....oh what oh what could it be...??